Moynihan Memorial Library
Congressional Record
Moynihan Library Links
In Memoriam
Congressional Record
Moynihan in the Times (N.Y.)
News Exhibit Hall
Katrina Review
911 Commission Report Chapter *8*
Ruskin____Lectures 2004___---_---__2005
Required Reading - Army & Navy Club
Iraq and al Qaeda
King Lear
Beyond Good and Evil
IRS and the illegals from the North
The CENCAL Letters
Dear Yvonne: The Love Letters
The Stolen Notebook
E-Mail Archives : The_Out_Box
E-Mail Archives : The_In_Box
E-Mail Archives: Hate_Mail
The Last Letter: There is a Good and a Bad . . . .
Fascism_in Daily_Life
Educational Technology
The New Ruskin College Project Archives
The Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Letters
The Math Project Archives
Ryan, Moscone, and Milk, Liberal Martyrs

Congressional Record: December 15, 2000 (Senate)
Page S11837-S11841







  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on this last day of the 106th Congress I

would ask to be allowed a moment of reminiscence and farewell.

  Come January 3--deo voluntus, as the Brothers used to teach us--I

will have served four terms in the United States Senate, a near quarter

century. In our long history only one other New Yorker, our beloved

Jacob K. Javits, has served four terms. I had the fortune of joining

the Finance Committee from the outset, and served for a period as

chairman, the first New Yorker since before the Civil War. I was also,

at one point, chair of Environment and Public Works. I have been on

Rules and Administration for the longest while, and for a period was

also on Foreign Relations. Senators will know that it would be most

unusual for someone to serve on both Finance and Foreign Relations at

the same time. An account of how this came about may be of interest.

  The elections of 1986 returned a Democratic majority to the Senate

and the Democratic Steering Committee, of which I was then a member,

began its biannual task of filling Democratic vacancies in the various

standing committees. There are four ``Super A'' committees as we term

them. In order of creation they are Foreign Relations, Finance, Armed

Services and Appropriations. With the rarest exceptions, under our

caucus rules a Senator may only serve on one of these four.

  There were three vacancies on Foreign Relations. In years past these

would have been snapped up. Foreign Relations was a committee of great

prestige and daunting tasks. Of a sudden however, no one seemed

interested. The Senate was already experiencing what the eminent

statesman James Schlesinger describes in the current issue of The

National Interest as ``the loss of interest in foreign policy by the

general public'' (p. 110). Two newly-elected Senators were more or less

persuaded to take seats. At length the Steering Committee turned to me,

as a former ambassador. I remained on Finance.

  And so I served six years under the chairmanship of the incomparable

Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. I treasure the experience--the signing

and ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), the

final days of the Cold War. But I continue to be puzzled and troubled

by our inattention to foreign affairs. To be sure, the clearest

achievement of this Congress has been in the field of foreign trade,

with major enactments regarding Africa, the Caribbean, and China.

These, however, have been the province of the Finance Committee, and it

was with great difficulty and at most partial success did Chairman Bill

Roth and I make the connection between world trade and world peace.

This would have been self-evident at mid-century. I remark, and I

believe there is a case, that any short list of events that led to the

Second World War would include the aftermath of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff

of 1930. Indeed, in the course of the ceremony at which the President

signed the measure naming possible permanent normal trade relations

with China in connection with its admission to the World Trade

Organization, I observed that the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, which

conceived the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and

anticipated an international trade organization, opened on the day I

joined the Navy. For certain there was no connection, but my point was

simply that in the midst of war the Allies were looking to a lasting

peace that might follow, and this very much included the absence of

trade wars.

  But again, how to account for the falling-off of congressional

involvement in foreign affairs. I offer the thought that the failure of

our intelligence, in the large sense of term, to foresee--forsooth to

conceive!--the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought forth a

psychology of denial and avoidance. We would as soon not think too much

about all, thank you very much.

  I have recounted elsewhere the 1992 hearings of the Foreign Relations

Committee on the START I Treaty. Our superb negotiators had mastered

every mind-numbing detail of this epic agreement. With one exception.

They had negotiated the treaty with a sovereign nation, the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics. Now they brought to us a treaty signed with

four quite different nations: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

When asked when this new set of signatories was agreed to, the

Committee was informed that this had just recently taken place at a

meeting in Lisbon. An observer might well have wondered if this was the

scenario of a Humphrey Bogart movie. The negotiators were admirably

frank. The Soviet Union had broken up in December 1991. Few, if any, at

their ``end of the street'' had predicted the collapse. Let me correct

the record: None had.


  As to the record, I would cite the 1991 article in Foreign Affairs by

the estimable Stansfield Turner. The Admiral had served as Director of

Central Intelligence and knew the record. He was blunt, as an admiral

ought. I cite a passage in Secrecy:

  [Turner wrote,] ``We should not gloss over the enormity of this

failure to forecast the magnitude of the Soviet crisis. We know now

that there were many Soviet academics, economists and political

thinkers, other than those officially presented to us by the Soviet

government, who understood long before 1980 that the Soviet economic

system was broken and that it was only a matter of time before someone

had to try and repair it, as had Khrushchev. Yet I never heard a

suggestion from the CIA, or the intelligence arms of the departments of

defense or state, that numerous Soviets recognized a growing systemic

economic problem.'' Turner acknowledged the ``revisionist rumblings''

claiming that the CIA had in fact seen the collapse coming, but he

dismissed them: ``If some individual CIA analysts were more prescient

than the corporate view, their ideas were filtered out in the

bureaucratic process; and it is the corporate view that counts because

that is what reaches the president and his advisors. On this one, the

corporate view missed by a mile. Why were so many of us insensitive to

the inevitable?

  Just as striking is the experience of General George Lee Butler,

Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) from 1990 to 1994.

Again to cite from Secrecy.

  As the one responsible for drafting the overall U.S. strategy for



[[Page S11838]]


war, Butler had studied the Soviet Union with an intensity and level of

detail matched by few others in the West. He had studied the footage of

the military parades and the Kremlin, had scrutinized the deployments

of Soviet missiles and other armaments: ``In all, he thought of the

Soviet Union as a fearsome garrison state seeking global domination and

preparing for certain conflict with the West. The only reasonable

posture for the United States, he told colleagues, was to keep

thousands of American nuclear weapons at the ready so that if war broke

out, Washington could destroy as much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal as

possible. It was the harrowing but hallowed logic of nuclear

deterrence.'' But Butler began having doubts about this picture, upon

which so much of U.S. foreign policy was based, by the time of his

first visit to the Soviet Union, on December 4, 1988. When he landed at

Sheremetyevo Airport, on the outskirts of Moscow, he thought at first

that the uneven, pockmarked runway was an open field. The taxiways were

still covered with snow from a storm two days earlier, and dozens of

the runway lights were broken. Riding into downtown Moscow in an

official motorcade, Butler noticed the roads were ragged, the massive

government buildings crumbling. He was astonished when the gearshift in

his car snapped off in his driver's hand. After pouring over thousands

of satellite photos and thirty years' worth of classified reports,

Butler had expected to find a modern, functional industrialized

country; what he found instead was ``severe economic deprivation.''

Even more telling was ``the sense of defeat in the eyes of the people.

. . . It all came crashing home to me that I really had been dealing

with a caricature all those years.''

  General Butler was right. More than he might have known. This fall

former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski estimated that the

economy of ``Russia is one-tenth the size of America and its industrial

plant is about three times older than the OECD average.'' The

population has dropped from 151 million in 1990 to 146 million in 1999.

Infant mortality is devastating. Far from overwhelming the West, it is

problematic as to whether Russia can maintain a presence east of the

Ural Mountains. If you consider that the empire of the Czars once

extended to San Francisco we can judge the calamity brought about by

sixty-some years of Marxist-Leninism.

  And yet we did not judge. To say again, the United States government

had no sense of what was coming, not the least preparation for the

implosion of 1991.

  In 1919, John Reed, a Harvard graduate, and later a Soviet agent

wrote Ten Days that Shook the World, his celebrated account of the

Russian Revolution, as it would come to be known, in October 1917. In

no time these events acquired mythic dimension for intellectuals and

others the world over. At Harvard, Daniel Bell would patiently guide

students through the facts that there were two Russian Revolutions; the

first democratic, the second in effect totalitarian. But this was lost

on all but a few.

  It would appear that the Soviet collapse was so sudden, we were so

unprepared for it, that we really have yet to absorb the magnitude of

the event. It was, after all, the largest peaceful revolution in

history. Not a drop of blood was shed as a five hundred year old empire

broke up into some twelve nations, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus,

Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine, whilst formerly independent

nations absorbed into the Soviet Bloc, Poland, the Czech Republic,

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia et al., regained their independence. In the

aftermath there has been no book, no movie, no posters, no legend.

  To the contrary, weak Russia grows steadily weaker--possibly to the

point of instability, as shown in the miserable events in Chechnya. We

see a government of former agents of the intelligence services and the

secret police. We see continued efforts at increasing armament. Witness

the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk. We see the return of the

red flag. We see little engagement with the West, much less the East

where China looms with perhaps ten times the population and far more

economic strength.

  And the United States? Apart from a few perfunctory measures, and one

serious, the Nunn-Lugar program, almost no response. To the contrary,

at this moment we have, as we must assume, some 6,000 nuclear weapons

targeted on Russia, a number disproportionate at the height of the Cold

War, and near to lunacy in the aftermath. When, as Senator Lugar

estimates, the Russian defense budget has declined to $5 billion a


  What is more, other than the highest echelon of the Pentagon, no

doubt some elements of the intelligence community, possibly the

Department of State, no American knows what the targeting plan is. In

particular, Members of Congress, possibly with very few exceptions, do

not know. Are they refused information? Just recently, our esteemed

colleague, J. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, wrote the Secretary of

Defense, William S. Cohen, a former colleague of ours, to set forth the

facts of this insane situation.

  There are signs that an open debate concerning nuclear weapons may be

afoot. In The Washington Post recently, we learn of the response to a

proposal by Stephen M. Younger, associate director of Los Alamos

National Laboratory and head of its nuclear weapons work, proposing a

great reduction in the number of massive weapons now in our arsenal in

favor of smaller devices intended to deal with much smaller engagements

than those envisioned during the Cold War. The Post reports that we now

have some 7,982 warheads linked to nine different delivery systems,

ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers. These are scheduled to decline to 3,500, half

on Trident II submarines, under the Start II agreement. Younger argues

that still fewer are needed. Any one of which would wipe out any large

city on earth. It appears that other experts believe that a few dozen

to several hundred of today's high-yield warheads would suffice to

manage the standoff with Russia or China. There is, perhaps more

urgently, the matter of nuclear weapons in what are for some reason

still called Third World nations, a relic of Cold War usage. Nuclear

standoff has settled into the South Asian subcontinent. The prospect

that an ``Islamic Bomb'' will migrate westwards from Pakistan is real

enough. It may be happening at this moment. The more then do we need

open debate. The more urgent then is Senator Kerrey's assertion that

Congress be involved. His profound observation that ``Sometimes secrecy

produces its opposite; less safety and security.''

  I have remarked on how little notice has been taken of the Russian

revolution of 1989-91. By contrast, the ``information revolution'' has

become a fixture of our vocabulary and our pronouncements on the widest

range of subjects, and at times would seem to dominate political

discourse. It might do well to make a connection as Francis Fukuyama

does in the current issue of Commentary. In his review of a new book by

George Gilder with the suggestive title Telecom: How Infinite Bandwidth

Will Revolutionize Our World, Fukuyama makes the connection.

  Why, then, do those convinced that the revolution is already

triumphant shake their heads so sadly at those of us who ``just don't

get it?'' True, people want to feel good about themselves, and it helps

to believe that one is contributing to some higher social purpose while

pursuing self-enrichment. But it must also be conceded that the

information-technology revolution really does have more going for it

than previous advances in, say, steam or internal combustion (or, one

suspects, than the coming revolution in biotechnology).

  The mechanization of production in the 19th and early 20th centuries

rewarded large-scale organization, routinization, uniformity, and

centralization. Many of the great works of imagination that accompanied

this process, from Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times to Aldous Huxley's

Brave New World, depicted individuals subsumed by huge machines, often

of a political nature. Not so the information revolution, which usually

punishes excessively large scale, distributes information and hence

power to much larger groups of people, and rewards intelligence, risk,

creativity and education rather than obedience and regimentation.



[[Page S11839]]


one would not wish to push this too far, it is probably no accident

that the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes did not survive

the transition into the information age.

  Is it possible to hope that we might give some serious thought to the

possible connection? And to ask ourselves just how we measure up in

this regard?

  That said, is it not extraordinary and worrying that of a sudden we

find ourselves in a state of great agitation concerning security

matters all across our government, from our nuclear laboratories at

home to embassies abroad to the topmost reaches of government? The late

Lars-Erik Nelson described it as ``spy panic.'' In the process the

possibility emerges that our national security will be compromised to a

degree unimaginable by mere espionage. The possibility is that we could

grievously degrade the most important institutions of foreign and

defense policy--our capacity for invention and innovation--through our

own actions.


  Take the matter of the loss, and evident return in clouded

circumstances of two hard drives containing sensitive nuclear

information from the Nuclear Energy Search Team at Los Alamos National

Laboratory. This June, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson asked two of

our wisest statesmen, the Honorable Howard H. Baker, Jr., and the

Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, to enquire into the matter. Here are the Key

Findings of their report of September 25th.

  While it is unclear what happened to the missing hard drives at Los

Alamos National Laboratory, it is clear that there was a security lapse

and that the consequences of the loss of the data on the hard drives

would be extremely damaging to the national security.

  Among the known consequences of the hard-drive incident, the most

worrisome is the devastating effect on the morale and productivity of

LANL, which plays a critical national-security role for the Nation.

  The current negative climate is incompatible with the performance of

good science. A perfect security system at a national laboratory is of

no use if the laboratory can no longer generate the cutting-edge

technology that needs to be protected from improper disclosure.

  It is critical to reverse the demoralization at LANL before it

further undermines the ability of that institution both to continue to

make its vital contributions to our national security, and to protect

the sensitive national-security information that is critical to the

fulfillment of its responsibilities.

  Urgent action should be taken to ensure that Los Alamos National

Laboratory gets back to work in a reformed security structure that will

allow the work there to be successfully sustained over the long term.

  Almost alone among commentators, Lars-Erik Nelson pursued the matter,

describing the interviews Senator Baker and Representative Hamilton had

with lab personnel.

  They now report that ``the combined effects of the Wen Ho Lee affair,

the recent fire at [Los Alamos] and the continuing swirl around the

hard-drive episode have devastated morale and productivity at [Los


  The employees we met expressed fear and deep concern over the . . .

yellow crime-scene tape in their workspace, the interrogation of their

colleagues by . . . federal prosecutors before a grand jury and the

resort of some of their colleagues to taking a second mortgage on their

homes to pay for attorney fees.

  There is no denying that Lee and whoever misplaced the computer

drives committed serious breaches of security. But the resulting threat

to our safety is only theoretical; the damage to morale, productivity

and recruitment is real.

  Employees were furious at being forced to take routine lie-detector

tests, a requirement imposed on them by a panicky Secretary of Energy.

. . .

  Obviously, there is a need for security in government. A Los Alamos

employee gave Baker and Hamilton an obvious, easy solution.

Unfortunately, it will be the one most likely to be adopted: ``The

safest and most secure way to do work is not to do any work at all.''

  In the course of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government

Secrecy (of which more later), a Commission member, then-Director of

Central Intelligence John M. Deutch, revealed to the American people

the extraordinary work of the VENONA project, an enterprise of the Army

Security Agency during and after World War II. During the war the

agency began to copy KGB traffic from and to the United States. On

December 20, 1946, Meredith K. Gardner--I am happy to say still with

us, buoyant and brilliant as ever--``broke'' the first. Dated 2

December 1944, it was a list of the principal nuclear scientists at Los

Alamos. Bethe, Bohr, Fermi, Newman, Rossi, Kistiakowsky, Segre, Taylor,

Penney, Compton, Lawrence and so on. The Soviets knew, and in time

stole essentials of the early atom bomb. But what they could not do,

was to slow down or deter the work of these great men, who would take

us further into the age of the hydrogen bomb. Next, their successors to

yet more mind-bending feats. The Soviets could not stop them. Would it

not be the final triumph of the defunct Cold War if we stopped them



  Do not dismiss this thought. If you happen to know a professor of

physics, enquire as to how many ``post-docs'' are interested in weapons

research, given the present atmosphere. To work at one-third the salary

available elsewhere, and take lie detector tests.

  And then there is intelligence. Nelson quotes a ``former top

intelligence official'' who told him, ``If you're not taking secrets

home, you're not doing your job.'' And yet here we are harassing John

M. Deutch, a scientist of the greatest achievement, a public servant of

epic ability for--working at home after dinner. Would it be too far-

fetched to ask when will the next Provost of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology choose to leave the banks of the Charles River

for the swamps of the Potomac?

  Now I don't doubt that, as opposed to an intelligence official, there

are ambassadors who don't take their work home at night. Over the years

the United States has created a number of postings with just that

attraction. But these are few. The great, overwhelming number of our

ambassadors and their embassy associates are exceptional persons who

have gone in harm's way to serve their country. I was ambassador to

India at the time our ambassador to Sudan and an aide were abducted

from a reception by Islamic terrorists, spirited away and murdered.

Some days later the Egyptian envoy in New Delhi asked to see me. He had

a message from then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to tell me that

their intelligence sources reported I would be next. It is a not

uncommon occurrence. But nothing so common as taking work home, or

working in a--usually heavily armored--embassy limousine. Ask any

former ambassador to Israel. Our embassy in Tel Aviv is an hour's drive

from the capital in Jerusalem. The drive up and back is routinely used

to dictate memoranda of conversation, type them on a laptop. Whatever.

This fall, the superbly qualified, many would say indispensable

ambassador to Israel, Martin S. Indyk, was stripped of his security

clearances for just such actions. I cite Al Kamen's account in The

Washington Post.

  Just the other day, ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk was deep

into the State Department doghouse for ``suspected violations'' of

security regulations. His security clearance was suspended, so he

couldn't handle classified materials. He needed an escort while in the

State Department building. The department's diplomatic security folks

wanted him to stay in this country until their investigation was


  At a White House briefing Monday, a reporter asked if Indyk could

``function as ambassador? Do we have a functioning ambassador?''

  ``Not at the moment,'' press secretary Jake Siewert said.

  Allow me to cite a report by the redoubtable Jane Perlez, who was

just recently reporting from Pyongyang on the psychotic security

measures in the capital of North Korea. Eerily similar antics were to

be encountered on September 30, Ms. Perlez reported:


 State Dept. Unfreezes Hundreds of Promotions After Delay for Security



       Washington, Sept. 29.--A continuing security crackdown at

     the State Department led to the freezing of promotions for

     more than 200 senior officials, pending a review of their

     security records, department officials said today.

       The director general of the Foreign Service, Marc Grossman,

     said he was assessing the promotion files for security



[[Page S11840]]


     before sending the promotions to the White House, which then

     dispatches them to Congress for approval.

       The release of the list was delayed after the suspension of

     the security clearance of one of the department's most senior

     officials, Martin S. Indyk, ambassador to Israel, and a

     sudden vigilance by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright,

     who is under pressure from Congress on security problems.

       This evening, the department said that ``under 10''

     officials had been barred from promotions after Mr.

     Grossman's review of 400 candidates. The nearly 400 people

     included 200 midlevel officials, whose promotions were

     released today after a weeklong delay.

       As word of the latest action spread through the department,

     an assistant secretary of state complained at a senior staff

     meeting this week that management faced ``rage'' in the

     building and increasingly demoralized employees, according to

     several accounts of the session.

       Others, as well as diplomats abroad, complained of a

     poisonous atmosphere in the department created, in part, by

     security officials who grilled junior Foreign Service

     officers about their superiors. One senior official said the

     obsession with security had created a ``monster'' out of the

     bureau of diplomatic security, which Congress generously

     finances to the detriment of other areas of the department.

       In a yet more eerie analogy, one department employee

     described the situation as a ``security jihad.''

       It doesn't stop. It accelerates! Just this month The

     Washington Post reported the resignation of senior diplomats,

     the suspension of another, the firing of a further two over

     security matters.

       J. Stapleton Roy, one of the nation's two most senior

     foreign service officers and a three-time U.S. ambassador,

     has resigned in protest after Secretary of State Madeleine K.

     Albright suspended his deputy without pay and fired two other

     long-time State Department officials over a missing top-

     secret laptop computer. . . .

       The departure of Roy and the reassignment of [Donald]

     Keyser will rob the department of two of its top China

     experts. The son of a missionary, Roy grew up in China,

     returned to the United States to go to Princeton University,

     then joined the foreign service. He later served as

     ambassador to China, Indonesia and Singapore. Keyser had

     served in Beijing three times, had been the State

     Department's director of Chinese and Mongolian affairs, and

     most recently held the rank of ambassador as a special

     negotiator for conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and former

     Soviet republics.

       ``That's a lot of brainpower suddenly removed from the

     State Department,'' said William C. McCahill, a recently

     retired foreign service officer who served as the deputy

     chief of mission in Beijing. ``Keyser is a brilliant analyst

     and a person of great intellectual honesty and rigor. Stape

     is the kind of person you want in INR, someone who can think

     beyond today and tomorrow, who can think beyond established

     policy.''--The Washington Post, December 5, 2000.


  With some hesitation I would call to mind the purge of the ``China

hands'' from the Department of State during the McCarthy era. As our

Commission established with finality, there was indeed a Soviet attack

on American diplomacy and nuclear development during and after World

War II. There were early and major successes. The design of the first

atom bomb. But not much else, and for not much longer. The real

damage--the parallels are eerie--to American security came from the

disinclination of the intelligence community--then largely in the

Army--to share information with ``civilians.'' Specifically, documents

obtained from the F.B.I. indicate that President Truman was never told

of the Army Signals Security Agency's decryptions of Soviet cables

during and after the war. He thought the whole business of Communist

spying was a ``red herring.'' In 1953 he termed Whittaker Chambers and

Elizabeth Bentley ``a crook and a louse.'' American diplomacy and the

Department of State in particular were for years haunted by charges

they could readily have dealt with had they but known what their own

government knew. And who issued the instruction that the President was

not to be told? General Omar N. Bradley whom the President had made

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Admittedly it is hard to prove

a negative.) But I was reassured by an article in the Summer edition of

the ``Bulletin'' of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. In

it, Deputy CIA historian Michael Warner votes with the judgment I

offered earlier in my book ``Secrecy.''

  What might it be that Secretary Albright needs to know today but has

not been told? A generation hence we might learn. If, that is, the

current secrecy regime goes unaltered.

  For the moment, however, I have further distressing news for

Ambassador Stapleton if he should have occasion to return to the

Department of State main building for one or another reason. I have

just received a copy of a letter sent to David G. Carpenter, Assistant

Secretary of State for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Another

recently retired Ambassador, a statesman of large achievement and

impeccable reputation recently called at Main State, to use their term.

He was frisked at the entrance. He was allowed into the building, but

assigned an ``escort,'' who accompanied wherever he went. Including,

the ambassador writes, ``the men's room.''

  It is difficult not to agree with the Ambassador's assessment that

``the `escort' policy is insulting and totally out of proportion to any

desired enhancement of security.'' But then so is so much of security

policy as it has evolved over the past sixty years.

  What is to be done? Surely we must search for a pattern in all this.

Our Commission proposed a simple, direct formation. Secrecy is a form

of regulation.

  In the previous Congress, legislation was prepared to embody the

essentials of the Commission recommendations. All classified materials

would bear the name and position of the person assigning the

classification and the date, subject to review, that the classification

would expire. It is not generally realized, but apart from atomic

matters, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and a few other areas

there is no law stipulating what is to be classified Confidential,

Secret, Top Secret--and there are numerous higher designations. It is

simply a matter of judgement for anyone who has a rubber stamp handy.

Our bill was unanimously reported from the Committee on Governmental

Affairs, under the fine chairmanship of Senator Fred Thompson, with the

full support of the then-ranking Committee member, our revered John

Glenn. But nothing came of it. The assorted government agencies,

covertly if you like, simply smothered it. The bureaucracy triumphed

once more. Thomas Jefferson's dictum that ``An informed citizenry is

vital to the functioning of a democratic society'' gave way before the

self-perpetuating interests of bureaucracy.

  I am pleased to report that this year's Intelligence Authorization

bill, which is now at the White House awaiting President Clinton's

signature, includes the Public Interest Declassification Act. The

measure establishes a nine-member ``Public Interest Declassification

Board'' of ``nationally recognized experts'' who will advise the

President and pertinent executive branch agencies on which national

security documents should be declassified first. Five members of the

Board will be appointed by the President and four members will be

appointed by the Senate and the House.

  The Board's main purpose will be to help determine declassification

priorities. This is especially important during a time of Congress'

continual slashing of the declassification budgets. In addition to the

routine systematic work required by President Clinton's Executive Order

12958, the intelligence community is also required to process Freedom

of Information Act requests, Privacy Act requests, and special searches

levied primarily by members of Congress and the administration.

  There is a need to bring order to this increasingly chaotic process.

This Board may just provide the necessary guidance and will help

determine how our finite declassification resources can best be

allocated among all these competing demands.

  My hope is that the Board will be a voice within the executive branch

urging restraint in matters of secrecy. I have tried to lay out the

organizational dynamics which produce ever larger and more intrusive

secrecy regimes. I have sought to suggest how damaging this can be to

true national security interests. But this is a modest achievement

given the great hopes with which our Commission concluded its work. I

fear that rationality is but a weak foil to the irrational. In the end

we shall need character as well as conviction. We need public persons

the stature of George P. Shultz, who when in 1986 learned of plans to

begin giving lie detector tests for State Department employees, calmly

announced that the day that program began would be the day he submitted

his resignation as Secretary of State. And so of course it


[[Page S11841]]


did not begin. And yet with him gone, the bureaucratic imperative



And so Mr. President, I conclude my remarks, thanking all my fellow

Senators present and past for untold courtesies over these many years.




Congressional Record: March 26, 2003 (Senate)
Page S4426-S4429


  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I come to the floor on very sad
business, both for this body, for my State, and my country. We have
just received word that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has passed
away. For those of us who were privileged to know him, to work with
him, to admire and respect him, this is a loss beyond my capacity to
  Senator Moynihan for decades represented the highest ideals and
values of the United States of America. A son of Hell's Kitchen in New
York City, he rose to be a confidante and adviser to Presidents. He is
responsible for many of the most important ideas and legislative
programs that have improved the lives of people in New York, people
here in Washington, DC, and our country and around the world.
  I am very honored to hold the seat that Senator Moynihan held for so
long and so well. Along with his wonderful wife Liz Moynihan, they have
been great counselors and advisers to me personally. I will miss him
  Sometimes when I sit here on the floor of the Senate, I wish that
Senator Moynihan could be here in spirit as well as body, that his wise
counsel could influence our decisionmaking, that he would remind us
that what we do, what we say, what we vote for is not just for today,
it is for all time. It goes down into the history books. It represents
the judgments that we make. It truly displays the values that we claim
to hold.
  He understood that being a U.S. Senator was a precious trust. Anyone
who ever heard him speak knows the experience of learning more than you
ever thought possible in a short period of time. He could explain and
expound on such a range of subjects that it took my breath away. I
remember riding with him through western New York on a bus during the
1992 campaign and hearing the most exquisite disposition about the
history of the Indian nations, the Revolutionary War, the geological
formations. The love he had for New York and America was overwhelming
and so obvious to anyone who spent more than a minute in his company.
  He also held high standards about what we should expect from this
great country of ours. He wanted us to keep looking beyond the short
term, looking beyond the horizon, thinking about the next generation,
understanding the big problems that confront us, having the courage to
tackle what is not immediately popular, even not immediately
understandable, because that is what we are charged to do in this
deliberative body.
  Senator Moynihan's scholarly undertakings also will stand the test of

[[Page S4427]]

He sometimes was ahead of his time. In each of his writings or his
speeches, whether you agreed with him or not, you were forced to think
and think hard. He certainly opened my eyes to a lot of difficult
  I could not have had a stronger, more helpful adviser during my
campaign than Senator Moynihan. I started my listening tour of my
exploration of whether or not to run for this office at Pinders Corner,
his farm in upstate New York, a place that he loved beyond words.
  I met him in a little schoolhouse, a 19th century schoolhouse that
was on the property where he wrote. He would walk down the road from
his house to that little schoolhouse every day where he would think
deeply and write about the issues that he knew would be important, not
just for tomorrow's headline but for years and years to come.
  There is not any way that anyone will ever fill his place in this
Senate, not just in the order of succession definition but in the
intellectual power, the passion, the love of this extraordinary body
and our country. He will be so missed.
  On behalf of myself and my family and the people I represent, I
extend my condolence and sympathy not only to his wonderful family and
not only to New Yorkers who elected him time and time again, increasing
majorities from one end of the State to the next, but to our country.
We have lost a great American, an extraordinary Senator, an
intellectual, and a man of passion and understanding about what really
makes this country great.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in abject sadness on the
horrible news that Senator Moynihan has passed from our midst. When it
was announced in our caucus that this terrible event had occurred, you
could just see the energy come out of the room and the sadness come on
everybody's face. Senator Moynihan was a unique individual. He wasn't
just another Senator. He wasn't just another human being. He was very
  Rarely has one man changed society so with his ideas, the idea that
one man can change society for the better. Senator Moynihan's life was
testament to that fact. His life was testament to the fact that one man
who just thinks can make an enormous difference. He was truly a giant--
a giant as a thinker, as a Senator, and as a human being. He was a kind
and compassionate person, a loving husband. Liz, our thoughts go out to
you and to all of the Moynihan children and family. I have known him
for a very long time.

  When I was a student at Harvard College, I audited his course. I got
to know him a little bit then. As I went through my congressional
career, we used to have lunch every so often. He was a complete joy to
just sit down and have lunch with and exchange ideas.
  He looked out for people. He cared about people. He had real courage.
When he disagreed with the conventional wisdom, nothing would stop Pat
Moynihan from making his view heard and making it heard in such an
interesting and intellectually and thoughtful way.
  Again, he changed our world for the better. There are hundreds of
millions of human beings in this country who do not know it, but he
made their lives better. There are billions of people in the world, and
through his work he made their lives better.
  Senator Moynihan was loved in my home State of New York from one end
of the State to the other. We are a big, broad, diverse State. It is
very hard to find consensus with 19 million New Yorkers, but just about
everybody loved Pat Moynihan. He did it through a big heart and a great
  He is now with his Maker. I know I will be looking up to the heavens
for inspiration, as I looked to Senator Moynihan's office when he was
still with us.
  I very much regret his passing. I pray for the Moynihan family and
for the children. I hope God gives us a few more Pat Moynihans in this
Senate and in this country. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I commend the distinguished Senator
from New York for his eloquence and his empathy for the family
especially of our departed colleague, Pat Moynihan.
  The Senator from New York used the term "giant," and, indeed, in
this case, I can think of no better word to describe the man, the
magnitude, the depth, the history, the persona of Pat Moynihan.
  "The Almanac of American Politics" called Pat Moynihan the Nation's
best thinker among politicians since Lincoln and its best politician
among thinkers since Jefferson. Scholar, educator, statesman, adviser
to four Presidents--Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford--Pat
Moynihan was the only person in American history to serve in a Cabinet
or sub-Cabinet position in four successive administrations.
  As my colleagues have noted, he represented the State of New York for
24 years in the Senate with unique vision, imagination, intelligence,
and integrity. In many respects, Pat Moynihan was larger than life,
whether on the streets of New York or in the corridors of this Capitol.
He was a beloved father, grandfather, friend, and colleague to so many
of us.
  I, too, extend my condolences on behalf of the entire Senate to his
wife Liz, to his children, Tim, Maura, and John, his grandchildren,
Zora and Michael Patrick. New York and the Nation have lost a giant.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I was very sorry to learn of the passing
of our good friend and great Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. I
wanted to come and extend condolences on behalf of myself and a lot of
other Senators to the family, the children, the grandchildren, and the
people of New York, and to America because we have lost truly a great
man in Senator Pat Moynihan.
  Sometimes people do not realize the types of relationships we do
build in this Chamber across the broad philosophical and partisan
divide. But Pat Moynihan was not that kind of man. He was always
willing to work with Senators, no matter where they were from or what
their views were, to try to do the right thing.
  Since I have been watching the Senate over the last 30 years up close
and personal, as a House Member and a Senator, I have not known a more
brilliant and more erudite Senator than the distinguished Senator Pat
Moynihan of New York. He served his country in so many different
critical roles.
  He studied, wrote papers, and made us realize problems we would just
as soon not talk about--problems with the children in America, the
problems of poverty, the importance of the world community.
  He did so many exceptional things for Democratic administrations and,
yes, Republican administrations, and in the majority and in the
minority in the Senate. I grew to admire him and appreciate him, to
seek his advice, and even try to get his vote on occasion, and on
occasion he gave it because I was able to convince him that maybe it
was the right thing to do.
  He also had a sense of humor I learned to appreciate. But more than
anything, I will remember my encounters with Senator Moynihan in the
little dining room downstairs. About once a week--sometimes not that
often, maybe once a month--I would go down to get a bite to eat and he
would be there. He always ate strange orders of food, I might say, but
I just loved his knowledge. It became an opportunity for me to learn
about the world. I would pick a country: Tell me about India. An hour
later he was still talking.
  I remember one time, I said: I do not quite understand what is going
on in East Timor, and he corrected my pronunciation and told me what
was going on in that part of the world, what had happened
historically--such a wealth of knowledge--all the players involved, the
religious considerations, what the solutions could have been, what the
solutions might be, what the future would hold. More than once--I would
say at least three times--before I got back to my office, before the

[[Page S4428]]

was out, a book would arrive that he had written or that I should read
to understand what was going on in the world. What a special touch.
  Senator Pat Moynihan tried to help educate this Senator, one who
needed a lot of help, but he gave me a greater appreciation of our
relationship with countries and people all over the world.
  This was a giant of a man, a giant of a Senator, a humble man, in
many respects. I have missed him since he left the Senate, and we will
all miss him now that he has gone on to his great reward.
  I had to come to the floor and express my personal feelings about the
great Senator from New York and how much he meant to me personally, to
the Senate, and to the country.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have just heard the saddening news that
our former colleague, Senator Moynihan of New York, has passed away.
This is a great loss for the State of New York, but it is also a great
loss for the people of the United States. He was one of the truly
outstanding public servants of his time and one of the intellectual
towers of this body.
  I first met Pat Moynihan when I served in the Nixon administration
working at the Department of Transportation. I can say with some
accuracy that the name Pat Moynihan filled us all with dread and fear
because he was the President's counselor on domestic issues. We were
afraid he would come to the Department of Transportation and expose all
of our weaknesses; that with his intellect he could discover very
quickly where we were doing things wrong.
  I met him at the White House as we would go over and discuss various
transportation issues. On one occasion, Secretary Volpe invited Mr.
Moynihan to come to the Department and address all of the Department's
senior management. We had a program of management dinners where all of
the senior officials of the Department would gather together and we
would have a speaker come in and talk with us. Mr. Moynihan was the
first of those speakers, along with Bryce Harlow, who came at my
invitation, a little later. That was my moment in the sun with
Secretary Volpe, that I was able to call Bryce Harlow and get him to
come over and give the address. I still remember very clearly what Pat
Moynihan said to us on that occasion and the lesson he gave us.

  Being the student of history that he was, he went back to relatively
recent history in describing pivotal events in America. He made this
point: Political scientists assume that President Kennedy and President
Johnson were activist Presidents, whereas President Eisenhower is
always described as a passive President, or a pacifist kind of
President. He said that particular characterization is given by their
opponents, as well as their defenders, people defending Eisenhower's
passive attitude toward Government, as well as those attacking it, and
so on with Kennedy and Johnson.
  However, he said, history will show that President Eisenhower
affected life in the United States more than all of the things done by
Kennedy and Johnson put together. Why? Because President Eisenhower was
responsible for the creation of the interstate highway system.
  Recognize again, he was addressing a group of officials at the
Department of Transportation. He had done his homework and focused on a
transportation issue. He outlined for us the changes in American life
that came from the interstate highway system, how cities that were left
off the system more or less withered and died and other cities that
found themselves on the system had tremendous growth; how the system
created efficiency for the transportation of goods and people all over
the United States.
  I remember one statistic, when I worked at the Department of
Transportation, that said 95 percent of intercity trips took place on
the interstate highway system. We focused on travel as being a
competition in those days between air travel and rail travel, and
indeed in the industrial age, going back to Abraham Lincoln's time and
after the Civil War, almost all intercity trips were by rail. Then the
airlines came in and we talked about the airlines cutting into the rail
  He pointed out it was not the airline industry that destroyed
railroad passenger traffic; It was the interstate highway system and
the convenience that came with the opportunity to take one's own
automobile and go from one city to the other and then have local
transportation while there. They did not have to catch a cab when they
came out of the train station. They brought it with them.
  It was this ability to see beyond the specifics of conventional
wisdom, step back and see the overall picture that defined Pat
Moynihan. He did it for us in that particular speech, but he did it
throughout his entire career.

  I remember as we became acquainted that he talked with me about the
work he did with my father when my father was in the Senate and he was
in the Nixon administration. They were talking about programs that the
Nixon administration tried to put into place which, for one reason or
another, the Congress did not accept. He said to me, if we had
prevailed in that program that Wallace Bennett was for, we wouldn't
have many of the urban problems that we have today.
  I won't try to imitate his accent because it was distinctly his and
was part of his charm.
  One of the things that I had not understood but that I came to know
while Pat Moynihan was in the Senate was the role he played in the
rejuvenation of Washington, DC. The story is told and accepted as
conventional wisdom that when John F. Kennedy went in his inaugural
parade from the Capitol to the White House, he noticed how rundown
Pennsylvania Avenue was--and it was. Those of us who remember
Pennsylvania Avenue in the 1960s remember it as a place of rundown
seedy shops and disreputable buildings that were badly in need of
replacement. The conventional wisdom is that John F. Kennedy noticed
that as he went by in his limousine and said, We have to do something
about that. And the rejuvenation of Pennsylvania Avenue began in the
Kennedy administration.
  In fact, that is not true. It was not John F. Kennedy who noticed it;
it was Pat Moynihan who noticed it and called it to the attention of
John F. Kennedy, who, then, in the spirit of all of us in politics,
took his staffer's advice and put it forward as his own.
  Pat Moynihan, as chairman of what we used to call the Public Works
Committee--now it is the Environment and Public Works Committee--Pat
Moynihan, of what we used to call the Public Works Committee, presided
over the public works that saw to it that Pennsylvania Avenue was
turned into the kind of memorial avenue that the world's greatest power
deserves; that it changed from what it had been to become the
architectural delight that it is today.
  I had not realized that until I read Pat Moynihan's memos. He shared
them with me, in another circumstance, and going through the memos I
realized he was personally the driving force behind that kind of an
effort. That demonstrates how much of a renaissance man he was. He was
interested in architecture. He was interested in art. He was one of
those who helped create the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Yes, as a legislator he was interested in public issues and public
policy, but as a renaissance man he remained interested in just about
everything else.
  I can't think of any career covering a wider number of opportunities
than his: Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador to India,
serving Presidents regardless of party, regardless of ideology, with
wisdom, clarity, and again the ability to see the big picture, the
overall historical circumstance, and not just the issue directly in
front of him.
  I remember when he was chairman of the Finance Committee and we were
locked in this Chamber in a bitter battle over health care. He did his
duty. He was the good soldier. He did his best to carry the water for
the administration. But in private conversations with him he would
candidly share some of

[[Page S4429]]

the same concerns that the rest of us had. While he was the good
soldier all the way to the end, I know he gave the administration Dutch
uncle advice as to what they should be doing.
  I remember sitting in the Cabinet Room of the White House when
President Clinton had a group of us down to talk about what we needed
to do to get trade authority, to get fast track. All of us were being
appropriately respectful of the President, as you are in that kind of
circumstance. All of us were trying to put forward our opinions in as
tender and gingerly expressed a way as we could because we were with
the President. Pat Moynihan sat at the President's left and the
President said; "What do we need to do to get trade authority
  He said; "Sir, you need to get more Democrats."
  That warmed my heart. The Republicans were in favor of fast track. We
didn't want to say it. And Pat Moynihan summarized it: "Sir, you need
to get more Democrats."
  The President looked at him and said; "Pat, you are absolutely
right. How do we do that?"
  Then they had a very candid discussion.
  He was not overly awed by anyone, regardless--with respect to their
position. But he was always awed by any human being who had something
to tell him. His attitude was that he could learn from anyone.
  His health was not the best. His passing is not unexpected. But this
is a time for us to rejoice in the opportunity of having known him,
having worked with him in this body and having been blessed by his
intellect, his humor, his humility, and his great understanding. We
shall miss him, and we express our great condolence to his wife Liz and
to all of the members of his family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad I had the opportunity to hear
the Senator from Utah talk about our friend Pat Moynihan because in
1969 the Senator from Utah and I had different jobs. I was working for
Bryce Harlow in the White House and he was working for Secretary Volpe,
both of us in the Nixon administration.
  One of the things I think many people will look at, about the Nixon
administration, is what an extraordinarily diverse group of individuals
the President was able to attract. The Senator from Utah and I were
young persons. I am not talking about us at that time. But I am talking
about Henry Kissinger and Arthur Burns and Bryce Harlow and foremost
among them was Pat Moynihan.
  Particularly when we look at a Washington, DC, where so many issues
are so divisive and so partisan--and there was a lot of partisanship
back then. Look back at 1969. Here was Pat Moynihan, a Harvard
professor, Kennedy Democrat, who became the Republican President's
domestic policy adviser. He was an extraordinary person. He was, as the
Senator from Utah pointed out, a man who could see a long distance.
  In the 1960s he coined the phrase "benign neglect," when he talked
about the breakdown of the American family and the effect it might have
on African-American families. He was courageous enough to talk about
that. He predicted at that time that if the rate of breakdown of
families that was then occurring among African-American families were
to occur among all families, it would be a catastrophe for America.
That percentage has long since passed. Pat Moynihan was willing to talk
about it.
  He was a great teacher. He attracted into the White House at that
time a cadre of young Moynihan devotees who are still around today--for
example, Checker Finn, a young Harvard graduate who is a leading
education expert; and Chris DeMuth, who has had a distinguished career
here. All of those young people were attracted by his intellect and his
sense of public service.
  He had an ability even then to be a person who crossed party lines.
He was one of the old Democratic liberals such as Al Shanker--some of
them are now called neoconservatives today--who saw our country in a
very accurate and clear way.
  He believed in America. He was an immigrant, a great immigrant, an
Irish immigrant, with all the characteristics that we think of when we
think of great Irish immigrants, but he was an American first. He was
proud of where he came from but he was prouder of the country to which
he came.
  He loved politics. His favorite character was George Washington
Plunkett, the boss of Tammany Hall. He wrote a forward for a book on
Plunkett. Plunkett's favorite comment was:

       I seen my opportunities and I took them.

  He went to the United Nations where he pounded the desk. He went to
India as Ambassador. He ran for the Senate. Think of this. He ran in
1976, a Republican from the then-disgraced Nixon administration. I know
what that was like. I was in that administration. I had been a
candidate myself in 1974--lost; and here was Pat Moynihan in New York
State, a Democratic State, running for the Senate as a Democrat, able
to be elected because of the respect people had for him.
  I watched him during his whole career. When I was Education Secretary
he came down and lectured me from this body because he wanted me to be
more aggressive on standards. But he was always such a gentle person.
  As I have gone along in life, I have especially appreciated people
who are well known and famous who take time for people who are not so
well known and famous. I can remember when my wife and I, in our early
30s--I was, she was younger--went to Harvard, to the John F. Kennedy
School of Government, where Pat had gone in the early 1970s. He was a
famous man, a great professor, a former adviser to Presidents. Everyone
knew him. No one knew us. But he saw us and he spent 45 minutes or an
hour with us. He was a teacher and we were his students.
  I am glad to be on the floor today to hear my friend from Utah speak
of such a distinguished American. We need more Senators, more public
leaders, with the breadth and the intellect and the understanding of
American history that Pat Moynihan had. We need more who have the
capacity to work across party lines, to solve tough problems such as
Social Security, which he helped to solve, and to enjoy politics, to
love George Washington Plunkett, and the rough and tumble of Tammany
Hall politics, but at the same time, when the Nation's issues are
foremost, to put them first.

  So I rise today to salute a great American, a real patriot, and
perhaps a person who most of us--Senators or students--will remember as
a great teacher.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Congressional Record: March 26, 2003 (House)
Page H2360-H2362

              Tribute to the Late Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his leadership on this important bill that I am supporting. But
I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and, on
behalf of my colleagues and constituents, to join with them in mourning
his passing today.
  Senator Moynihan was one of our truly inspiring legislators. He was a
scholar, a legislator, an ambassador, a cabinet officer, a Presidential
adviser in four administrations, the only person in history to serve
four consecutive administrations. He was a teacher, a writer, and one
of the best Senators

[[Page H2361]]

ever to grace the halls of this institution.
  He was unmatched in his ability to craft innovative solutions to
society's most pressing problems, from welfare to Social Security, to
transportation, to taxes. His legislative stamp is everywhere.
  Known as, and I quote from the Almanac of American Politics, "the
Nation's best thinker among politicians since Lincoln, and its best
politician among thinkers since Jefferson," Senator Moynihan moved
people through the power of his ideas. He was a unique figure in public
life, a man of pure intellect, who was unafraid of speaking
inconvenient truths.
  Senator Moynihan's life exemplified the American dream. He grew up in
a slum known as Hell's Kitchen. Abandoned by his father, his mother
became the sole supporter of the family during the Depression. Small
wonder that Senator Moynihan grew up to be a strong voice on welfare
issues. He recognized the danger of fostering a culture of dependency,
while understanding the importance of maintaining a strong safety net.
  He proved to be one of the most accurate prophets of our era. Time
and time again he correctly predicted future consequences, even though
many refused to believe him when his prediction ran counter to
conventional wisdom. In the 1980s, he predicted the coming collapse of
the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, he expressed concern about the tendency
of our society to define deviancy down.
  For New Yorkers, Senator Moynihan has and always will be one of our
own homegrown heroes, our proud gift to the Nation. Despite his
reputation for attention to the more scholarly pursuits, he authored 18
books, Senator Moynihan never forgot those of us who elected him.
  He was a hero to landmark preservationists for his effort to preserve
the Custom House and the Farley Post Office, the new train station on
the Farley site, which he helped plan and which he helped to fund, but
it does not yet have a name. I believe that it should be named for
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
  When the Coast Guard left Governors Island, he persuaded President
Clinton to agree to give the island to New York for $1, and it was this
Congress that was able to make that pledge a reality. As ambassador to
the United Nations, he denounced the resolution equating Zionism with
racism. Seventeen years later, the U.N. reversed itself, revoking this
shameful resolution.
  Senator Moynihan was a prime mover behind ISTEA, which changed the
way highway and transportation funds are distributed. He was widely
credited with shifting transportation priorities and making it possible
for us to invest in alternatives, like high-speed rail.
  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he was a guardian of
Social Security; and he focused his attention on the importance of
opening up government filings and reducing secrecy in government. I was
proud to have worked with him on the passage of the Nazi War Crimes
Disclosure bill. After 50 years, Americans finally are beginning to get
a glimpse of the things that our government knew.
  Senator Moynihan was also a tireless worker on getting an accurate
census for our country.
  Senator Moynihan's passing will make this country a poorer place. I
join my constituents and my colleagues in paying tribute to the great
Senator from the Great State of New York.
  Senator Moynihan was truly an American treasure. He was a great
friend and mentor to me, and we will miss him greatly. My colleagues
and I send to Elizabeth and their family our deep concern and
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a biography of this remarkable
  Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the senior United States Senator from New
York. First elected in 1976, Senator Moynihan was re-elected in 1982,
1988, and 1994.
  Senator Moynihan was the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
Committee on Finance. He served on the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
He also was a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Joint
Committee on the Library of Congress.
  A member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet of Presidents Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon and Ford, Senator Moynihan was the only person in
American history to serve in four successive administrations. He was
U.S. Ambassador to India from 1973 to 1975 and U.S. Representative to
the United Nations from 1975 to 1976. In February 1976 he represented
the United States as President of the United Nations Security Council.
  Senator Moynihan was born on March 17, 1927. He attended public and
parochial schools in New York City and graduated from Benjamin Franklin
High School in East Harlem. He went on to attend the City College of
New York for one year before enlisting in the United States Navy. He
served on active duty from 1944 to 1947. In 1966, he completed twenty
years in the Naval Reserve and was retired. Senator Moynihan earned his
bachelor's degree (cum laude) from Tufts University, studied at the
London School of Economics as a Fulbright Scholar, and received his
M.A. and Ph.D. from Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and
  Senator Moynihan was a member of Averell Harriman's gubernatorial
campaign staff in 1954 and then served on Gov. Harriman's staff in
Albany until 1958. He was an alternate Kennedy delegate at the 1960
Democratic Convention. Beginning in 1961, he served in the U.S.
Department of Labor as an assistant to the Secretary, and later as
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and Research.
  In 1966, Senator Moynihan became Director of the Joint Center for
Urban Studies at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He has been a Professor of Government at Harvard
University, Assistant Professor of Government at Syracuse University, a
fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Wesleyan University, and
has taught in the extension programs of Russell Sage College and the
Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Senator
Moynihan is the recipient of 62 honorary degrees.
  Senator Moynihan was the author or editor of 18 books. His most
recent work is Secrecy: The American Experience, published in the fall
of 1998, an expansion of the report by the Commission on Protecting and
Reducing Government Secrecy. Senator Moynihan, as Chairman of the
Commission, led the first comprehensive review in forty years of the
Federal Government's system of classifying and declassifying
information and granting clearances.
  Since 1976 Senator Moynihan has published an analysis of the flow of
funds between the Federal Government and New York State. In 1992 the
analysis became a joint publication with the Taubman Center for State
and Local Government at Harvard University, and includes all fifty

  Senator Moynihan was a fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). He was Chairman of the AAAS's section on
Social, Economic and Political Science (1971-72) and a member of the
Board of Directors (1972-73). He also served as a member of the
President's Science Advisory Committee (1971-73). Senator Moynihan was
Vice Chairman (1971-76) of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars. He served on the National Commission on Social Security
Reform (1982-83) whose recommendations formed the basis of legislation
to assure the system's fiscal stability.
  He was the founding Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (1971-85) and served as Regent of
the Smithsonian Institution, having been appointed in 1987 and again in
1995. In 1985, the Smithsonian awarded him its Joseph Henry Medal.
  In 1965, Senator Moynihan received the Arthur S. Flemming Awards,
which recognizes outstanding young Federal employees, for his work as
"an architect of the Nation's program to eradicate poverty." He has
also received the International League of Human Rights Award (1975) and
the John LaFarge Award for Interracial Justice (1980). In 1983, he was
the first recipient of the American Political Science Association's
Hubert H. Humphrey Award for "notable public service by a political
scientist." In 1984, Senator Moynihan received the State University of
New York at Albany's Medallion of the University in recognition of his
"extraordinary public service and leadership in the field for
education." In 1986, he received the Seal Medallion of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Britannica Medal for the Dissemination of
  He has also received the Laetare Medal of the University of Notre
Dame (1992), the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture from
the American Institute of Architects (1992), and the Thomas Jefferson
Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Arts or Humanities from the
American Philosophical Society (1993). In 1994, he received the Gold
Medal Award "honoring services to humanity" from the National
Institute of Social Sciences.

[[Page H2362]]

In 1997, the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University
awarded Senator Moynihan the Cartwright Prize. He was the 1998
recipient of the Heinz Award in Public Policy "for having been a
distinct and unique voice in the century--independent in his
convictions, a scholar, teacher, statesman and politician, skilled in
the art of the possible."
  Elizabeth Brennan Moynihan, his wife of 44 years, is an architectural
historian with a special interest in 16th century Mughal architecture
in India. She is the author of Paradise as a Garden: In Persia and
Mughal India (1979) and numerous articles. Mrs. Moynihan is a former
Chairman of the Board of the American Schools of Oriental Research. She
serves as a member of the Indo-U.S. Subcommission on Education and
Culture, and the visiting committee of the Freer Gallery of Art at the
Smithsonian Institution. She is Vice Chair of the Board of the National
Building Museum, and on the Trustees Council of the Preservation League
of New York State.


Statement by Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-New York)

Following is a statement from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.

Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, I speak to the matter of prudence. Charles L. Black, Jr. begins his masterful account Impeachment: A Handbook with a warning: `Everyone must shrink from this most drastic of measures. . . . [t]his awful step.'

For it is just that. The drafters of the American Constitution had, from England and from Colonial government, fully formed models of what a legislature should be, what a judiciary should do. But nowhere on earth was there a nation with an elected head of an executive branch of government.

Here they turned to an understanding of governance which marks the American Constitution as a signal event in human history--what the Framers called `the new science of politics.' What we might term the intellectual revolution of 1787. The victors in the Revolution could agree that no one, or not many, wanted another monarchy in line with the long melancholy succession since Rome. Yet given what Madison termed `the fugitive and turbulent existence of . . . ancient republics,' who could dare to suggest that a modern republic could hope for anything better?

Madison could. And why? Because study had produced new knowledge, which could now be put to use. This great new claim rested upon a new and aggressively more `realistic' idea of human nature. Ancient and medieval thought and practice were said to have failed disastrously by clinging to illusions regarding how men ought to be. Instead, the new science would take man as he actually is, would accept as primary in his nature the self-interestedness and passion displayed by all men everywhere and, precisely on that basis, would work out decent political solutions.

This was a declaration of intellectual independence equal to anything asserted in 1776. Until then, with but few exceptions, the whole of political thought had turned on ways to inculcate virtue in a small class that would govern. But, wrote Madison, `If men were angels, no government would be necessary.' We would have to work with the material at hand. Not pretty, but something more important: predictable. Thus, men could be relied upon to be selfish; nay, rapacious. Very well: `Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.' Whereupon we derive the central principle of the Constitution, the various devices which in Madison's formulation offset `by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives.'

Impeachment was to be the device whereby the Congress might counteract the `defect of better motives' in a President. But any such behavior needed to be massive and immediately threatening to the state for impeachment ever to go forward. Otherwise a quadrennial election would serve to restitute wrongs.

Further, they had a model for this process in the impeachment of Warren Hastings which had begun in April of 1786 with Edmund Burke presenting twenty-two `Articles of Charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The debate in the House of

Commons continued into 1787 and was reported in the Pennsylvania Gazette.

Burke was hardly a stranger to the Americans at Philadelphia. He had championed the cause of the American colonies during the Revolution, and was now doing much the same as regards the governance of British India. He accused the Governor General of the highest crimes possible against, inter alia, the peoples of India.

At Philadelphia, the standard for impeachment was discussed only once--on Saturday, September 8, 1787. At that point in the convention, the draft of the clause in the Constitution pertaining to impeachment referred only to `treason and bribery.'

Here are Madison's notes of the debate that day:

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments against the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.

Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He mov.d to add after `bribery' `or maladministration.' Mr. GERRY seconded him.

Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. GOV.r MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. MASON withdrew `maladministration' & substitutes `other high crimes & misdemeanors the State.'

The convention later replaced the word `State' with `United States.' And on September 12, 1787, the Committee of Style--which had no authority to alter the substantive meaning of the text--deleted the words `against the United States.'

Thus the Framers clearly intended that a President should be removed only for offenses `against the United States.' It may also be concluded that the addition of the words `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' was intended to extend the impeachment power of Congress so as to reach `great and dangerous offences,' in Mason's phrase.

The question now before the Senate is whether the acts that form the basis for the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Which is to say, `great and dangerous offences' against the United States.

Over the course of 1998, as we proceeded through various revelations, thence to Impeachment and so on to this trial at the outset of 1999, I found myself asking whether the assorted charges, even if proven, would rise to the standard of `great and dangerous offences' against the United States. More than one commentator observed that we were dealing with `low crimes.'

Matters that can be tried in criminal courts after the President's term expires. Early in his address to the Senate our distinguished former colleague Dale Bumpers made this point:

Colleagues, you have such an awesome responsibility. My good friend, the senior Senator from New York, has said it well. He says a decision to convict holds the potential for destabilizing the Office of the Presidency.

The former Senator from Arkansas was referring to an article in The New York Times on December 25th in which I said this:

We are an indispensable nation and we have to protect the Presidency as an institution. You could very readily destabilize the Presidency, move to a randomness. That's an institution that has to be stable, not in dispute. Absent that, do not doubt that you could degrade the Republic quickly.

This could happen if the President were removed from office for less than the `great and dangerous offences' contemplated by the Framers.

In Grand Inquests, his splendid and definitive history of the impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, and of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist records how narrowly we twice escaped from a precedent that would indeed have given us a Presidency (and a Court) subject to `tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'

It is startling how seductive this view can be. In 1804 it was the Jeffersonians, including Jefferson himself, who saw impeachment as a convenient device for getting rid of a Justice of the Supreme Court with whose opinions they disagreed. Not many years later Radical Republicans sought the same approach to removing a President with whom they disagreed over policy matters.

It could happen again. Impeachment is a power singularly lacking any of the checks and balances on which the Framers depended. It is solely a power of the Congress. Do not doubt that it could bring radical instability to American government.

We are a blessed nation. But our blessings could be our ruin if we do not see how rare they are. There are two nations on earth, the United States and Britain, that both existed in 1800 and have not had their form of government changed by force since then. There are eight--I repeat eight--nations which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of government changed by violence since then: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Senators, do not take the imprudent risk that removing William Jefferson Clinton for low crimes will not in the end jeopardize the Constitution itself. Censure him by all means. He will be gone in less than two years. But do not let his misdeeds put in jeopardy the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, could I respond in the most emphatically
sympathetic and supportive way to the statement of the Senator from

  In 1993, this Congress passed legislation to create the
Commission on
Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy
in the United States. We had
a fine commission. Senator Helms and I represented the Senate, and in
the House, Larry Combest and Lee Hamilton, and John Deutch of the CIA.
The commission came up with a unanimous finding.
  We began with the proposition--and I can say to a fellow academic; he
will recognize it--Max Weber set forth that secrecy is the natural
weapon of a bureaucracy against the parliament and against the other
agencies of the political system. We found the most extraordinary
things. I later wrote about this.
  In December 1946, a brilliant crypto analyst at Arlington Hall Girl's
School, not far from the Pentagon, and broke the first of the Soviet
KGB codes. These are one-time pads. You "can't break them'' but they
got a little careless, used once or twice. There were the names of all
the physicists at Los Alamos, the principal ones. A measure of the
extent of the KGB operation in this country? As our crypto analyst
worked along, an Army corporal cipher clerk handing him pencils,
coffee, whatever, an Army corporal cipher clerk, a KGB spy. In very
short order, the KGB knew we were breaking their code.
  Then, of course, Kim Philby was at the British Embassy and we shared
some of these findings with the British--we probably still do. Then he
defected. In no time at all, they knew that we knew, and we knew that
they knew that we knew.
  People might be interested to learn, who was the one person in the
U.S. Government who did not know? The President of the United States.
On whose orders was this the case? Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. This is Army property. I guess he had a sense that if
he said, "Give everything to the White House,'' it gets out.
  President Truman never knew any of these things.
  With the exceptions of the Rosenbergs, none of these persons were
ever prosecuted. One of them, the most important, Hall, teaches physics
at Cambridge University in England, and comes back and forth to this
country. He had been part of that tremendous effort. He was from an
immigrant family living in Manhattan, went to Queens College. They
spotted him at Queens College, and they sent him up to Harvard. Then he
was sent to Los Alamos. He was never prosecuted because to prosecute,
it must be stated where we got the information and so forth.
  Secrecy can be so destructive to the flow of information that is
needed. It will continue long after there is any conceivable need for
secrecy. We estimated recently that the classified documents we have in
place now would be 441 times stacked up the height of the Washington
  A trivial example, but a characteristic example, President Ford at
one point had in mind that I might be Librarian of Congress. I was in
India, leaving the post as Ambassador and had a cable exchange with the
head of personnel in the White House. I was going back through Peking,
staying with the Bushes, stopped at Pearl Harbor, and then would be
here. An historian writing about the Library of Congress--an
interesting post; there have only been seven or eight in our history--
picked this up and went to the Ford Library. Yes, there is information;
but no, she couldn't see it, it was classified. It took months to get
the cable to Washington declassified.
  One could argue that there was good reason to keep that classified
for seven days, but 30 years later? That is a pattern. It is a pattern
that the people who deal with these things as classified don't know the
material, the subject matter; they don't know the physics taught to
first-year graduate students

[[Page S8569]]

at MIT, but information is still classified "top secret, no form,'' in
some bureaucracy in Washington. The absolute standard operating
procedure is to classify something "Top secret'' and then send it to
the President in the hopes that it will get on his desk if it looks
really enormous.
  There are endless examples of clippings from Newsweek magazine
stamped "Confidential.'' Just a bureaucratic mode.
  The idea that Dr. Lee was imprisoned is hard to understand. Solitary
confinement, worse. But leg irons? There were leg irons so one could
not run off to Mexico. Obviously, much needs to be explained.
  I say also for Dr. Deutch, this is a man of utmost patriotism. What
was his offense? I don't think it is a crime at all. He took work home
with him. After dinner he would sit down and work. There is a penalty
for that, and he accepted it. He has had all his clearances removed,
which is a heavy price for a scientist, but he has accepted that. The
idea that he has done anything wrong beyond that is to say to people:
Don't go near the clandestine services of the United States, don't go
near the atomic laboratories.
  I have no standing as a scientist, but I was a member of the
President's Science Advisory Committee, and I am a fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and having been a
member of the board and vice president at one point, I can say I know a
fair number of scientists. Their postdoctorate students don't want
anything to do with the Federal laboratories.
  If you want to do something to the national security of the United
States, keep the best minds out of the weapons labs. That will do it
faster than any transfer of information, which has a half-life of nine
months before others catch up or they think it up on their own.
  I can speak to this. For example, with atomic secrets, we have a
wonderful person, a great man, Hans Bethe, who was standing alongside
Oppenheimer at Los Alamos. A man of luminous intelligence. There is
nothing that he is more skeptical about than the idea of keeping
physical science secret. He tells the story that after the atomic bomb
was detonated, he and the other physicists involved said: All right,
but no hydrogen bomb. No, that is too much.

  And there was the further advantage:

       And thank God, nobody knew how. It was not possible to make
     one. It can't be done. The physics just won't work.

  And then he said: Stanislaw Ulam and Edward Teller figured out how it
could be done.
  And we said: Oh, Lord, if Ulam can think of it, Sakharov will think
of it. So we had better go through with it.
  He and Oppenheimer said:

       You have to go through to a hydrogen bomb because science
     is not in a box that you can put in a closet.

  I also want to say on this floor that I have not known a more
patriotic man than John Deutch; absolutely committed to this country's
security. Provost at MIT, a physical chemist, a man of great science,
who made the error of working after supper at home. Nothing was ever
transferred to anybody. He was working. What do I do in the morning?
That kind of thing. And the very idea we would try to punish him for
that is to put, I say, in jeopardy the whole reputation of American
classified science and clandestine service. We do that at a great cost,
which you will not recognize for half a century, perhaps. But it will
  I thank the Senator from Texas for what he has said. I appreciate his
indulgence in what I have joined him saying.
  I see my colleague seeks recognition. I yield the floor.


Congressional Record: October 27, 1999 (Senate)
Page S13258-S13287

                                              STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
                                          By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
                                      S. 1801. A bill to provide for the identification, collection, and 
                                    review for declassification of records and materials that are of 
                                    extraordinary public interest to the people of the United States, and 
                                    for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
                                    [[Page S13262]]
                                                  public interest declassification act of 1999
                                     Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
                                    Public Information Disclosure Act, a bill that seeks to add to our 
                                    citizens' knowledge of how and why our country made many of its key 
                                    national security decisions since the end of World War II. This bill 
                                    creates a mechanism for comprehensively reviewing and declassifying, 
                                    whenever possible, records of extraordinary public interest that 
                                    demonstrate and record this country's most significant and important 
                                    national security policies, actions, and decisions.
                                      As James Madison once wrote, "A people who mean to be their own 
                                    governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 
                                    Acquiring this knowledge has become increasingly difficult since World 
                                    War II's end, when we witnessed the rise of a vast national security 
                                    apparatus that encompasses thousands of employees and over 1.5 billion 
                                    classified documents that are 25 years or older. Secrecy, in the end, 
                                    is a form of regulation. And I concede that regulation of state secrets 
                                    is often necessary to protect national security. But how much needs to 
                                    be regulated after having aged 25 years or more?
                                      The warehousing and withholding of these documents and materials not 
                                    only impoverish our country's historical record but retard our 
                                    collective understanding of how and why the United States acted as it 
                                    did. This means that we have less chance to learn from what has gone 
                                    before; both mistakes and triumphs fall through the cracks of our 
                                    collective history, making it much harder to resolve key questions 
                                    about our past and to chart our future actions.
                                      On the other hand, greater openness makes it more possible for the 
                                    government to explain itself and to defend its actions, a not so 
                                    unimportant thing when one recalls Richard Hofstader's warning in his 
                                    classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics: "The 
                                    distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents 
                                    see conspiracies here and there in history, but they regard a 'vast' or 
                                    'gigantic' conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost 
                                    transcendent power as the motive force in historical events." A poll 
                                    taken in 1993 found that three-quarters of those surveyed believed that 
                                    President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA, 
                                    renegade elements of our military, and organized crime. The Grassy 
                                    Knoll continues to cut a wide path across our national consciousness. 
                                    The classified materials withheld from the Warren Commission, several 
                                    of our actions in Vietnam, and Watergate have only added to the 
                                    American people's distrust of the Federal government.
                                      Occasionally, though, the government has drawn back its cloak of 
                                    secrecy and made substantial contributions to our national 
                                    understanding. In 1995, the CIA and the NSA agreed to declassify the 
                                    Venona intercepts, our highly secretive effort that ranged over four 
                                    decades to decode the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic. Much of this 
                                    traffic centered on identifying Soviet spies, one of the cardinal 
                                    preoccupations of that hateful era we call "McCarthyism." These 
                                    releases made at least one thing crystal clear: Their timely release 
                                    decades ago would have dimmed the klieg lights on many who were 
                                    innocent and shown them more brightly on those who truly were guilty. 
                                    It would have been an important contribution during a time when the 
                                    innocent and the guilty were ensnared in the same net.
                                      Today, Congress plays a pivotal role in declassification through so-
                                    called "special searches." Generally, these involve a member of 
                                    Congress or the White House asking the intelligence community to search 
                                    its records on specific subjects. These have ranged from Pinochet to 
                                    murdered American church women to President Kennedy's assassination. 
                                    However, these good intentions often produce neither good results nor 
                                    good history. Sadly, most of these searches have been done poorly, 
                                    costing millions of dollars and consuming untold hours of labor. 
                                    Several have been performed repeatedly. Special searches on murdered 
                                    American church women, for example, have been done nine separate times. 
                                    Yet there are still several important questions that have yet to be 
                                    answered. The CIA alone has been asked to do 33 "special searches" 
                                    since 1998.
                                      Part of the problem is that Congress lacks a centralized, rational 
                                    way of addressing these requests. This bill establishes a nine-member 
                                    board composed of outside experts who can filter and steer these 
                                    searches, all the while seeking maximum efficiency and disclosure.
                                      The other part of the problem lies in how the intelligence community 
                                    has conducted these searches. It is imperative that searches are 
                                    carried out in a comprehensive manner. This is not only cheaper in the 
                                    long run but produces a much more accurate record of our history. One 
                                    cannot do Pinochet, for example, and not do Chile under his rule at the 
                                    same time. To do otherwise skews history too much and creates too many 
                                    blind spots, all leading to more questions and more searches. This does 
                                    a disservice not only to those asking for these searches but to the 
                                    American people who have to pay for ad hoc, poorly done 
                                    declassification. If we do it right the first time, then we can forgo 
                                    much inefficiency.
                                      Many of these special searches ask vital questions about this 
                                    nation's role in many disturbing events. We must see, therefore, that 
                                    they are done correctly and responsibly. This legislation, if passed, 
                                    would improve Congress' role in declassification, making it an 
                                    instrumental arm in the de-cloaking and re-democratization of our 
                                    national history. Indeed, anything less would cheat our citizens, 
                                    undermine their trust in our institutions, and erode our democratic 

Credentialed Scholars will be allowed to view these documents on alternate Tuesdays  on even numbered months by permission of the Ludi Magistor.

Contact PlinioDesignori at

© COPYRIGHT 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, by

All Rights Reserved.